Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ministers Who Say Judge Moore Acted Improperly Need To Tear Daniel Six Out Of Their Bibles!
Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon ^ | Aug 29, 2003 | Chuck Baldwin

Posted on 08/28/2003 8:50:50 PM PDT by xzins

Those Ministers Who Say Judge Moore Acted Improperly Need To Tear Daniel Chapter Six Out Of Their Bibles!

By Chuck Baldwin

Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon August 29, 2003 I have listened to minister after minister publicly rebuke Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore saying, as a Christian, he should have obeyed federal judge Myron Thompson's unlawful order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. Those ministers need to reread Daniel chapter six.

Daniel was a government official in the court of King Darius. In fact, Daniel was the second-in-command answering only to the king. Yet, when Darius issued his command that everyone in the kingdom not pray to God for thirty days, Daniel openly and defiantly disobeyed.

I've heard ministers say Judge Moore was wrong not to take down the monument and wait for his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to be decided. However, if this logic would have prevailed in the mind and heart of Daniel, the great story of Daniel in the lion's den would not appear in Scripture. After all, Darius' order against prayer was only for thirty days. Using the logic of today's ministers, Daniel should have merely suspended his prayers for thirty days, and everything would have been all right.

Instead, Daniel immediately went home, threw open his windows, and prayed to God as he always had done. He would not postpone his convictions for even thirty days!

Like Judge Roy Moore, Daniel believed that there is a higher authority than the king. Furthermore, he believed that human governments do not have the right to interfere with religious conscience, in or out of the public square.

Also take into account that Daniel lived under a monarchy. Darius' word was the law of the land. However, Americans do not live (yet) under a monarchy. A federal judge is not king; his word is not automatically law. Under our constitutional republic, whenever a federal judge, or any other government official, rules outside his constitutional authority, his ruling must be considered unlawful and irrelevant.

When Daniel disobeyed the law of King Darius, he had only the law of moral conscience behind him. Judge Moore has, not only the law of moral conscience, but the supreme law of the land (the U.S. Constitution) behind him!

Of all people, Christian ministers should flock to Judge Moore's assistance! That they aren't proves they are either ignorant of the lawlessness of this federal judge's actions, or they do not have the courage of their convictions.

One thing is sure: those ministers who condemn Judge Roy Moore's actions should tear the story of Daniel out of their Bibles, and never teach it again. If Daniel was right, Roy Moore is right!

© Chuck Baldwin

NOTE: These commentaries are copyrighted and may be reposted or republished without charge providing the publication does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and providing the publication reposts the column intact with full credit given including Chuck's web site: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. If the publication charges for subscriptions or advertising, the publication must contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com for permission to use this column.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bible; commandments; constitution; daniel; judges; law; moore
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-254 next last
This Daniel story is right to the point of the Judge Moore case.

When do you follow man, and when do you follow God?

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's

I was really disappointed in the SBC's Rev Land on Bill O'Reilley last night. He said that Moore was wrong. Land is naive. The Southern Baptists need a better spokesperson, unless this guy was just winging it on his own.

1 posted on 08/28/2003 8:50:51 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911; The Grammarian; SpookBrat; Dust in the Wind; JesseShurun; maestro; patent; ...
ping to this and to Daniel 6
2 posted on 08/28/2003 8:52:50 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I have noticed that most of the talk-show hosts (at least locally) have come out against this guy, but it's good to hear someone stand up for him. "Be cold or be hot, but lukewarm be not". And this Moore is not lukewarm. He's willing to speak out and 'start something'. Ya gotta pick your fights, and I truly believe this is a fight to pick. Too many people want to smooth things over, keep the peace, and and watch God slip out of our country.
3 posted on 08/28/2003 8:57:13 PM PDT by natewill (Start the revolution NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: xzins
The law Daniel defied was one dictating his personal freedom to worship as he believed in his own home.

The law Judge Moore defied was one dictating that NO ONE has the right to use the Govt to impose their religion on others.

Daniel was right.
Judge Moore is wrong.

And the comparison made in this article is a poor one.

5 posted on 08/28/2003 8:58:31 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I saw Baldwin on O'Reilly; he's more of a doofus on television than he is in print.

These zealots advocating disobedience of the law are getting more and more hysterical.

And, they're marginalizing themselves. They really are, xzins.

And they're not helping Moore. It's likely he'll be booted from office.

6 posted on 08/28/2003 8:58:36 PM PDT by sinkspur (How about rescuing a Bichon Frise? He'll love you forever!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
There is a difference. We are required to pray to God. We are not required to place the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. So when a law says not to place the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, it is not violating God's law to remove them. However, if a law says not to pray to God, then to follow man's law would indeed violate God's.

I'm not sure whose side I'm on in this case (mostly Moore's, but he should have obeyed the court order), but I'm definitely on the side against making false analogies.
7 posted on 08/28/2003 9:00:25 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: natewill
Too many people want to smooth things over, keep the peace, and and watch God slip out of our country.

As if a stone symbol which most people never even heard about is crucial to Christian convictions in people's hearts..and it's being moved will steal this faith from America. How silly.

8 posted on 08/28/2003 9:01:57 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins
SPOTREP
9 posted on 08/28/2003 9:04:44 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jorge; P-Marlowe
No religion was imposed on others.

If so, where is the law that established this one religion, and where is the place everyone is required to sign up?

Daniel was not allowed to pray anyplace. Moore is being told that he is not permitted to acknowledge his own constitution, express his faith in his workplace, nor use his own uniquenesses in performing his job.

Sounds like a similar case to me.

Both are experiencing "prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof."

10 posted on 08/28/2003 9:04:56 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: natewill
"Too many people want to smooth things over, keep the peace, and and watch God slip out of our country."

God slip out of our Country?

How can that possibly happen?

Look around you, open your eyes.

To take God out of our country, you must remove every mountain, every shore, every valley, every tree, every leaf, every cloud in the sky, every star in the firmaments above, every blade of grass, every grain of sand, and His presence in your heart and mine.

What power on this Earth do you know that can do that?

11 posted on 08/28/2003 9:06:55 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (There's no such thing as a stupid question, there are however, many inquisitive morons out there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
He'll not be booted from office, imo.

They'll not be able to point to a law that was violated. AND all of his associate justices said they agreed with his interpretation.

However, if he is, think about this: He runs again and is elected again.

12 posted on 08/28/2003 9:07:05 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
There is a bigger picture that you are missing here. The Constitution forbids the Supremes to make any laws regarding religion or it's free expression by the states and the citizens of those states.

They are as out of bounds on this as they are on affirmative action, abortion, and homosexual sex. They are the ones behaving illegally. As citizens it is our duty to ignore illegal laws that fly in the face of the Constitution.
13 posted on 08/28/2003 9:07:31 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Daniel was not allowed to pray anyplace."

And God survived that.

14 posted on 08/28/2003 9:07:40 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (There's no such thing as a stupid question, there are however, many inquisitive morons out there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
See #10.
15 posted on 08/28/2003 9:08:36 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
As if being told that you are prohibited from freely practicing your religion is a violation of God's grant of freedom.
16 posted on 08/28/2003 9:10:21 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
But they do not call it the bible belt for nothing... fanatics like beating people over the head with the belt
17 posted on 08/28/2003 9:10:29 PM PDT by cyborg (i'm half and half... me mum is a muggle and me dad is a witch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The property rights movement is probably more solidly behind Judge Moore than any other group, property rights activists see this as a "States Rights" issue. Some of the leaders of the property rights movement have been in Alabama in support of Judge Moore.

Everyone I have talked to in property rights groups are solidly behind Judge Moore. The Christians I have spoken to are somewhat divided, most behind the Judge, some against the judge, and some neutral.

18 posted on 08/28/2003 9:10:36 PM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
God made a point.

Don't mess with Daniel. Don't mess with my worshippers' freedom of worship.

Therefore, it is GOD who grants the FREEDOM. Not a judge, not the state.
19 posted on 08/28/2003 9:12:29 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: c-b 1
Explain "property rights" movement. I'm not familiar with it.
20 posted on 08/28/2003 9:13:35 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins
As if being told that you are prohibited from freely practicing your religion is a violation of God's grant of freedom.

So now being prohibited from using a Govt building to promote your religion even though that Govt guarantees freedom of religion for ALL....is robbing you of your freedom of religion?
Give me a break.

21 posted on 08/28/2003 9:15:03 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
As if a stone symbol which most people never even heard about is crucial to Christian convictions in people's hearts..and it's being moved will steal this faith from America. How silly.

C'mon. Nobody's arguing that a stone symbol embodies America's faith. The point is that the Ten Commandments say things like, 'Don't murder', and 'Don't steal'. Nobody disagrees with the message of the tablets. They are being removed simply because they are Christian. If it was a Buddhist monk statue, or a statue of Artemis, there would be no conflict. But a Christian statue! We can't have that! Remove it now!

This is a fight for Christianity and the acknowledgement that God has had a part in the history of our nation. And, yes, God is part of our environment: the rivers, the mountains, the seas, the gorgeous sunset that I saw tonight over the Rockies by Colorado Springs...

22 posted on 08/28/2003 9:21:18 PM PDT by natewill (Start the revolution NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Therefore, it is GOD who grants the FREEDOM. Not a judge, not the state.

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator...

23 posted on 08/28/2003 9:24:38 PM PDT by natewill (Start the revolution NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
There is no law saying that there cannot be a monument to the Ten Commandments, it was a judge's order. That is not law. In fact, according to the Alabama State Constitution he did what was required. He obeyed the law of the state.
24 posted on 08/28/2003 9:25:37 PM PDT by irishtenor (I AM in shape, round is a shape, ya know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: xzins
He'll not be booted from office, imo.

They'll not be able to point to a law that was violated.

I expect him to get railroaded.

The courts seem to not let a little detail like that get in their way.

25 posted on 08/28/2003 9:29:39 PM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Read it again... Congress is not allowed to make laws about religion. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make laws at all. They are to interpret according to the Constitution.
26 posted on 08/28/2003 9:29:49 PM PDT by irishtenor (I AM in shape, round is a shape, ya know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
Where does the Alabama State Constitution state that the Chief Justice is required to place the Ten Commandments in the courthouse?

Further, a judge's order is indeed law. It is not legislatively passed law, but it has the full force of the state behind it, which makes it law.

27 posted on 08/28/2003 9:30:39 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jorge; xzins
The law Judge Moore defied was one dictating that NO ONE has the right to use the Govt to impose their religion on others.

Could you tell me exactly what religion was imposed?

28 posted on 08/28/2003 9:30:50 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Typical oath of office for Judge Moore and others:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and truthfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. "

Obiviously in our society, the G-d to whom they swear is allah right?

29 posted on 08/28/2003 9:33:13 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: natewill; seamole; sinkspur; P-Marlowe
Ya gotta pick your fights

Wisely and prayerfully.

This is a critical choice by a Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court.

The preamble of the Alabama Constitution says:

We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, .... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:

Did you hear that? "In order to have justice...invoking Almighty God DO ORDAIN the Constitution..."

"In order to have justice we,...APPEALING TO THE HIGHEST GOD for FAVOR (INTERVENTION)...do Ordain the Constitution."

EXAMPLE: In order to have justice about this issue we...APPEALING TO PRESIDENT BUSH FOR FAVOR AND GUIDANCE...do WRITE THIS LETTER.

Now, When you write that letter to President Bush, who are you saying is in charge of things?

30 posted on 08/28/2003 9:34:32 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Nope, not law, court order. They are different animals. In other words; a court orders a man to pay his ex $500. If it were law, all men would have to pay their ex $500. As to the Alabama Const. Read the Judge's ruling on it, he said it better than I could. In short, it demands that the courts honor God! Like I said though, read what the Judge wrote about this.
31 posted on 08/28/2003 9:35:18 PM PDT by irishtenor (I AM in shape, round is a shape, ya know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Don't misunderstand, I believe the weight of the Constitution is on the side of Moore, but I disagree that he has the right to ignore the ruling of a higher court.

We are a nation of the rule of law. And the rule of law said to move the monument.

Further, as for his own personal convictions, Paul was clear that we must obey the laws of the land unless doing so violates God's law. No where does God command the Christian to place the Ten Commandments in our courthouses.
32 posted on 08/28/2003 9:35:21 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
Yes, they do make laws, that is not their function, but they have been making pleanty of laws. They issue dictorial edicts that have the force of law. Not a dimes worth of difference, it's still a law that carries penalties.
33 posted on 08/28/2003 9:35:57 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
So when a law says not to place the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, it is not violating God's law to remove them.

What law says that?

34 posted on 08/28/2003 9:37:31 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
In short, it demands that the courts honor God!

God demands this. I doubt He needs Judge Moore's help.

Nope, not law, court order.

Court orders make up law because a person is required by law to follow them or face contempt or even obstruction charges.

35 posted on 08/28/2003 9:37:37 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
The rule of law (Constitution) also says that the states rule on anything not specificly in the US Constitution. Article Ten, I do believe. This is exactly what he has done.
36 posted on 08/28/2003 9:38:37 PM PDT by irishtenor (I AM in shape, round is a shape, ya know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
I agree, and we need a stronger Congress to address the situation.
37 posted on 08/28/2003 9:39:55 PM PDT by irishtenor (I AM in shape, round is a shape, ya know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
While it is true that we must follow the rule of law, I believe the issue should always have been one of free speech, not religion. The ten commandments are the basis of much of our civil law, and placing them on a monument in a courthouse seems quite appropriate. It is not promoting or teaching any religion.
38 posted on 08/28/2003 9:40:21 PM PDT by foghornleghorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
And, they're marginalizing themselves.

They are as long as "conservatives" like you are content to keep company with the likes of ACLU opportunists.

39 posted on 08/28/2003 9:40:24 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Courts don't make laws, they issue rullings to the law. (At least that is how they are supposed to work).
40 posted on 08/28/2003 9:41:06 PM PDT by irishtenor (I AM in shape, round is a shape, ya know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Further, a judge's order is indeed law. It is not legislatively passed law, but it has the full force of the state behind it, which makes it law.

Bull, you must be a lawyer. Legislators make law in this country, executives and judges make it other than paper. Somewhere along the line the judges lost their way. Time to make the correction. A stone monument no more establishes a religion than belching makes a tenor.

41 posted on 08/28/2003 9:41:21 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie; xzins; freedumb2003
The Constitution forbids the Supremes to make any laws...

Bingo. So if the Supreme Court, or any court makes a law, then by definition it is an illegal law. And if a court issues an order pursuant to that judge-made law, then the order is void.

The power to legislate does not rest with the judiciary.

42 posted on 08/28/2003 9:41:56 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Milquetoast Q. Whitebread is alive!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
The rule of law (Constitution) also says that the states rule on anything not specificly in the US Constitution. Article Ten, I do believe.

Right, I agree, which is why I tend to side with Moore on the Constitutionality of the monument. But the Constiution also states that the federal courts are to interpret exactly what the Constitution says, and it gives them the force of law. The courts in this case sided against Moore, which we have to accept unless it is egregiously erroneous.

Egregiously erroneous would mean an order to kill all Christians, or something like that. It would not mean an order to move a monument.

Do you want a nation where we are allowed to ignore court orders simply because we do not agree with them?

43 posted on 08/28/2003 9:43:00 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
But it is not "promoting your religion". It is, imo,simply acknowledging the underpinnings of the law that governs us. It is more of an historical reference than an attempt to preach.
44 posted on 08/28/2003 9:44:13 PM PDT by foghornleghorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
God...cmds...courthouse

Diversion.

The issue is whether or not a state religion was established.

Another issue is whether or not Judge Moore has to excise ONLY his religious expression when it comes to the work environment in his own workplace that he is charged with arranging, decorating, organizing. (That would be prohibiting his free exercise.)

45 posted on 08/28/2003 9:45:23 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor; AndrewC
Courts don't make laws, they issue rullings to the law.

Right, but their rulings themselves govern how the law is interpreted and applied, and their rulings are enforced by the physical force of the state. Therefore, they are legally binding.

Again, I reiterate: Do you want a nation where we can ignore any court order we choose merely because we do not agree with it?

46 posted on 08/28/2003 9:45:46 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
As if a stone symbol...

It's not about a stone symbol, and you know it. It's about SCOTUS "interpreting" laws in such a way as to constitute a quasi-legislative body. Moore has repeatedly quoted the letter of the first ammendment, and proves he is not in violation of said ammendment. If you choose to sanction the SCOTUS revision of what the first actually says, there is no principle by which to argue any interpretation they come up with for any of the others...including the second. Judicial review is NOT a power granted by the Constitution.

47 posted on 08/28/2003 9:46:34 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
The entire 'exercise' is one of state's rights v federal usurpation of those rights held at state level. As things stand now, the SCOTUS 'self-appointed philosopher kings' have nullified state's rights by subjugating any state law to federal cancellation through the various federal districts.

One of the reasons this is getting gnarled up relates to the misdirection of 'Christian' principles and state's rights versus Federal oligarchy. It does no harm to Christianity to make a stone icon to the Ten Commandments inappropriate to a Courthouse (though that is precisely where they should be displayed, as well as in schools and public-use locations), but it certainly effects our collective liberty for the federal judiciary to continue cancelling the states' laws duly on the books.

48 posted on 08/28/2003 9:47:18 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
You my friend are 100% correct in my opinion.
49 posted on 08/28/2003 9:47:29 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Remove it based on what law? Seperation of church and state? There is no such law. A theoritical concept for sure. But law? No way.

If it were illegal for Moore to display the big ten, there would be an eleventh commanding "thou shalt not display these commandments." G-d doesn't prohibit the display, nor does the Constitution.



50 posted on 08/28/2003 9:48:02 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-254 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson